Loading...
PC MINS 20041109CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Appr• ved November 23, 2 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Tetreault at 7 05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present' Commissioners Gerstner, Karp, Knight, Petestam, and Tetreault Absent Vice Chair Cote and Chairman Mueller were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Assistant Planner Yu APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Tetreault suggested moving item number 5 to the beginning of the Agenda, as it appeared it would be continued The Planning Commission agreed to amend the Agenda to hear item no. 5 before item no 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas noted that staff had distributed two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1 and two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No 4, as well as the staff report for the view restoration case scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. Director/Secretary Rojas also noted that at the previous City Council meeting the City Council hired a professional mediator for the view restoration process Commissioner Knight stated that he had been contacted by Mike Chiles regarding Agenda Item No.1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. View Restoration Permit No. 177: 4132, 4139 and 4140 Exultant Drive Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that there is a sale pending of the foliage owner property is in escrow and the sale will likely close tomorrow Staff wants to give the new owner the opportunity to have a pre -application meeting with the applicant, and therefore staff is recommending the item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tetreault asked if, with a new owner on the foliage property, if the applicants are now having to start over with their application. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that that applicant would not have to start over but only meet with the applicant to satisfy the early neighborhood consultation requirement of the process. Staff would like the new owners to meet with the applicant as expeditiously as possible to not delay the process Commissioner Perestam asked if two weeks was a reasonable amount of time for the new owners. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the new owners request more time it may be given, however staff feels two weeks should be enough time. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of November 23, 2004, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 1 PODS Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2004-00265) Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued from a previous meeting with direction to staff to revise some of the proposed language for portable on demand storage containers He stated that one of the issues raised at the previous meeting was whether or not building permits would be required for the use of the PODS as permanent storage He explained that staff consulted with the Building Official, whose opinion is that the PODS are considered structures, and when used for permanent storage do require the approval for a building permit He stated that this would require the applicant to show the building official that the PODS meet the requirements of the building code for a complete Toad path capable of transferring the loads to the ground and is designed to resist all wind and earthquake loads as well as live and dead loads and be anchored to the ground by some sort of Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 2 foundation system. He also explained that the Planning Commission had asked staff to clarify the definition of a portable on demand storage container with a maximum size defined He stated that staff had concerns with including the maximum size in the PODS definition, and as such, was recommending language that the maximum size be included with the permanent storage use on private property section In response to the Planning Commission's direction, staff was also proposing new language to allow the PODS to be used on developed residential properties through the Site Plan Review application, provided certain criteria are met He also discussed the neighborhood compatibility issue, and noted that staff is recommending language that would exempt PODS from going through neighborhood compatibility review. He noted that staff also proposed language regarding the emergency use of PODS for temporary storage Finally, he explained that as currently written the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance would allow PODS to be approved within the moratorium area with the approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit, however the square footage of the PODS would count towards the 600 square foot maximum cumulative project limitation that is currently established Commissioner Karp asked staff to clarify why they did not want to include a maximum size as part of the definition of a PODS Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the City Attorney felt it was more appropriate to put a size limitation in the criteria section as opposed to the definition of a PODS. Commissioner Knight asked if there was anything in the Ordinance limiting the number of PODS allowed on a property Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there is nothing in the proposed Ordinance limiting the number of PODS on a property Commissioner Knight noted that there are two definitions of a structure, one in the Development Code and one in the California Building Code, and asked which one was being used in terms of the PODS. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that both the Development Code and the Building Code would define PODS as structures Commissioner Knight noted that the reason residents would use PODS in the moratonum area is because they are not attached to a foundation, and if the City is going to require PODS to be attached to a foundation how will this address the issues of land movement. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that what is before the Planning Commission and what the Planning Commission has purview over is the Development Code, which regulates the placement of PODS on private property Totally independent from that is the Uniform Building Code, which is a state code that the City has adopted, and is implemented by the Building Official. He explained that there was nothing proposed in Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 3 the Ordinance that would change the Uniform Building Code, as there is no authority to change that Code. He noted that there may be residents in the moratorium area who feel the requirements of the Uniform Building Code are too stringent, however those comments should be directed to the City Council when this item is forwarded to them to adopt, who can direct the Building Official to try to simplify the process. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what distinguishes PODS from structures such as pre -manufactured greenhouses that may be set on the property. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that the pre -manufactured type storage sheds are delivered to the site and they are put together at the site Commissioner Gerstner understood, however he noted that PODS are considered shipping/storage containers, and noted that years down the line someone might create some other type of metal box that could be used for some other purpose, and he wanted to make sure it didn't fall under this classification Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff felt that the language, as written, already distinguishes between the different uses. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the Planning Commission should be discussing topics such as lighting of the PODS. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that lighting would be a function of the Building Official and the Uniform Building Code, not the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that if the Planning Commission was concerned about the lighting of PODS, they could add criteria that PODS have no lights Commissioner Tetreault noted that in the Landslide Moratorium Area an addition is limited to 600 square feet, and asked if that would effectively be the maximum when considering the number of PODS that could be placed on a property in that area. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct, as there could only be a maximum of 600 square feet total added to the property Commissioner Gerstner asked if the 600 square feet total was irrespective of the parcel size Associate Planner Blumenthal answered the 600 square feet limitation was irrespective of the parcel size Commissioner Tetreault opened the public hearing. Don Frazier 26 Peppertree Lane stated that he lives in the landslide area and the south side of his lot was originally a little over 200 feet long, and is now about 270 feet long, Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 4 as it has stretched in the process of the land moving. He explained that he has had a cargo container on his property since before the City incorporated, and if has to bolt his container down to a foundation it will rip the floor of the container apart. He did not think one could make a cargo container any safer than they already are by putting them on a foundation, as these containers are simply boxes. He felt that it was a waste of energy and money to ask they be put on foundations, but agreed that they should be concealed. Tim Kelly 6 Fruit Tree Road asked if there is a distinction made between vacant and unoccupied Tots He felt that if the lots are vacant lots, he recommended that no containers be put on those lots, except for special uses such as the Pony Club or organized sports uses. If PODS are approved for occupied lots, he asked if there would there be a limit on the number of PODS allowed on the lot. He stated that there are a number of buildings that currently use PODS as their foundations, and by his calculations it would take three PODS to make a safe structure, and only 2 PODS at 320 square feet apiece will place the structure over the 600 square foot limit He stated that by definition PODS are portable and putting a foundation down will make them permanent. He stated, that Portuguese Bend has it's own architectural committee which is bounded by the CC&Rs, which can be more stringent than those of the City, and he could not see anything in the Resolution that allows for the enforcement of the community standards. He asked the Planning Commission to make some type of reference in the Resolution to the Portuguese Bend standards and to allow some process for the standards to be distributed. Finally, he asked if there was a grandfather clause with this Resolution and if the City was going to review structures that already exist Commissioner Knight explained that the City cannot enforce a community's CC&Rs, however he asked if there was something in the CC&Rs that Mr. Kelly felt could be included in the Ordinance that would more closely match the CC&Rs. Mr. Kelly answered that it was really a matter of making people aware of the CC&Rs and possibly having the City giving these CC&Rs out to their applicants as a courtesy. Jeanne Smolly 56 Limetree Lane stated that these containers fill a particular need for the residents on the Portuguese Landslide. She felt, however, that these containers should only be allowed on a lot that has a residence on it or on a contiguous lot to that residence under the same ownership She also felt that they should only be allowed in areas where there is land movement, as anywhere else a garage can be built. With respect to the building code requirements for a foundation, she stated that the containers are a superb structure designed to be stacked four to six high at the harbor or on ships without being firmly attached to anything She stated that no structure should be anchored to the ground in the Portuguese Bend landslide area, as the moving ground is the problem She felt that the problem with the containers is one of aesthetic impact, as they are ugly She felt that if one is to use a container as permanent storage, then it should look like a permanent structure and not identified as a sea container She suggested siding on all sides of the container and a small peaked roof to blend in with Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 5 the surrounding buildings noting that this is a residential community and not a repository for used sea containers. With respect to the 600 square foot cumulative figure, she stated that the most commonly used container is the 40 -foot container which amounts to 320 square feet, noting that two containers would be 640 square feet, just over the allowed amount. She suggested changing the language to limit to two 40 -foot containers She also suggested that all of the aesthetic requirements be retroactive to all existing containers. She stated that she fully supports the use of the sea containers for storage in the landslide, but respectfully requested their appearance be that of a structure that is pleasing to the eye and compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. Charles Himelwnght 21 Kumquat Lane felt that anchoring these storage containers to the ground is the worst possible suggestion He also noted that the residents in the Portuguese Bend area are not asking for permanent storage, only storage until the temporary building permit moratorium is lifted and they can build a garage or additional storage space. Daniel Pinkham 1 Narcissa Drive explained that because Portuguese Bend is a landslide area, residents have used these PODS out of necessity and any new ones most likely would not be out of necessity He suggested no new PODS be allowed and grandfather those that are already existing He also suggested that that appearance of the existing ones be softened with the use of foliage. Robert Halderman 88 Narcissa Drive stated that he does not have a POD on his property and does not have to look at any on the neighboring property However, he felt that there are enough of them currently in the area and did not support the approval of any new ones. He was also completely against putting foundations under the exiting storage containers because of the nature of these devices, as he did not think attaching them to a foundation would not create anything that would add to it's stability He asked that the exiting containers be out of sight through the use of vegetation or other means. Commissioner Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if it would be feasible to require all the existing PODS to be grandfathered in. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that typically any structures that exist and permitted when a new ordinance is adopted are considered to be existing non- conforming and aren't required to be brought to conformance of the ordinance Therefore, if the City Council were to adopt this Ordinance as written, any of the PODS existing in the area that have permits would be grandfathered in, and would not have to be brought up to the standards listed in the Ordinance. Commissioner Knight asked about existing PODS that do not have permits. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that exiting PODS without permits would be considered a non -permitted structure and subject to the proposed ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they were aware of any permits that have been issued to PODS in the Portuguese Bend area or elsewhere in the City. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there is a PODS on the Pony Club site that was permitted through their Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit and he believed that there are two homes in the slide area that use PODS as an alternative to a building foundation Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if, for the most part, most of the PODS in the Portuguese Bend area are non -permitted Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct Commissioner Gerstner noted that the proposed language states that the PODS shall be non-visible, and asked if there was anything in the proposed Ordinance that would allow the PODS to be visible. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staffs approach was that the PODS be non-visible and therefore there is no language discussing their look or design. Commissioner Gerstner noted there is no language in the proposed Ordinance addressing foundations, only that the PODS be compliant with the Uniform Building Code, and asked staff if the Uniform Building Code requires these structures have foundations Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it is the opinion of the Building Official that some type of foundation system is needed to anchor the PODS to the ground. Director/Secretary Rojas added that the Building Official has noted that once these PODS are taken off of a ship and put into someone's back yard they are considered a structure by the Uniform Building Code and are subject to the building regulations in the Uniform Building Code. He explained that while the City Council cannot change the Uniform Building Code, they can direct the Building Official to prepare some specifications that the PODS must meet and try to make a clear process that makes it easier for applicants to obtain a building permit. For discussion purposes, Commissioner Karp moved to discuss the PODS issue in two areas, one for the Portuguese Bend landslide area only, and one for the rest of the city. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that for discussion purposes it was possible to divide the issue, however he noted that the moratorium area is established not by the Development Code, but by a City Council Ordinance, and does not appear on any zoning maps He explained that it is a line, created by Ordinance, on a map to Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 7 designate boundaries based on an ancient landslide, and is not tied into anything in the Zoning or Development Codes Commissioner Knight seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the Planning Commission would be able to separate out the moratorium area from the rest of the City in the Ordinance Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the Planning Commission can separate out sections of the City if it can cite a different set of circumstances existing in some part of the City and change the draft language that is before the Commission, however some type of definition would then have to be included that would define the moratorium area Commissioner Karp moved to table the pending motion, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was unanimously approved. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Planning Commission should look at what is different about the moratorium area with respect to the use of PODS versus the rest of the City He noted that a very high percentage of PODS are concentrated in that area and are very rare in the rest of the City. He felt that this might demonstrate a particular need for that structure in that area. Further, he stated that in the proposed Ordinance it is permissive in the sense that it is not excluding them under certain conditions He felt that the Planning Commission might want to focus on what is unique about Portuguese Bend inside and outside the landslide area and why that would make a difference to the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Karp stated that there is no provision in the Ordinance limiting the number of PODS, and based on the discussion, that number of PODS needed in the landslide area might be three PODS per structure He also did not see any limitation as to how high these PODS could be stacked, and felt there should be a discussion on how high they can be stacked He also stated that containers come in all sizes and that a 600 square foot limitation may be insufficient in the landslide moratorium area He felt that putting PODS on a foundation defies common sense, and when laws are passed that defy common sense there is a potential for serious problems He also felt that the PODS should be camouflaged as best as possible, and suggested they be painted earth tone colors and have vegetation surrounding them Commissioner Gerstner felt it would be easier to refer to the proposed Resolution when discussing this matter. He began with the use of PODS for temporary storage (section A), and felt that the language in the draft Resolution was sufficient. Commissioner Knight agreed Commissioner Tetreault noted that the Ordinance refers to temporary storage and that temporary storage shall not exceed 30 days in one calendar year He questioned what a calendar year was and pointed out that an applicant could put up a PODS on Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 8 December 2nd and keep it until January 30th which would be 60 days over two calendar years He suggested rewording the section to say "thirty days in any 365 -day period." Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this would be a discretionary approval from the Planning Department and that each case would be looked at on an individual basis Commissioner Karp asked what size these temporary containers would be and how many would be allowed on each property Director/Secretary Rojas replied that there is currently a process for temporary storage containers in place and that the approval is discretionary Commissioner Karp felt that the wording might allow applicants to stack containers on their property and wondered if language should be included to prohibit this. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the Code only allows accessory structures to be twelve feet in height. Commissioner Gerstner then discussed temporary emergency storage (section B) and noted that the difference between A and B was that there were different time periods involved, but were subject to the same approvals by staff Director/Secretary Rojas noted that A and B have different approvals, explaining that in B, since it is under an emergency situation, the Director has the discretion to approve the storage container without first noticing the neighboring properties. Commissioner Gerstner next discussed construction storage (section C) and questioned how to regulate the amount of time PODS would be needed for the actual construction as opposed to using it for storage on the property. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that this type of use is the most common use of PODS in the City. He felt that Commissioner Gerstner raised a good point and perhaps a way to deal with that was to define what type of construction was being performed and that the location of the PODS and the time period allowed would be at the discretion of the Building Official. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.30 p m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8 45 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) Commissioner Gerstner continued with a discussion on the alternate building foundation (section D) and asked if these foundations would be limited to the active landslide area. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 9 Director/Secretary Rojas answered that these types of foundations are limited to the active landslide area. Commissioner Knight asked if there was a definition of the active landslide area Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there is a map of the active landslide area. The Planning Commission agreed with the wording in the proposed Ordinance regarding section D. Commissioner Gerstner next discussed permanent storage (section E), and began with the first clause which discusses maximum size (length, width and height). He felt that what was discussed in the staff report seemed like a reasonable size. Commissioner Karp explained that the units are measured in container equivalent units, which are 20 feet in length He asked if the 40 foot maximum in the staff report referred to one unit, or could it be two 20 -foot units Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the intent was that any one PODS on a property shall not be more than 40 feet in length Commissioner Karp suggested the wording be changed to say that any one unit shall not be more than 40 feet in length. Commissioner Gerstner asked why the 40 -foot length was chosen Associate Planner Blumenthal responded that 40 feet is the more typical size that is seen Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the larger, longer ones would be more difficult to bring in on the streets and cause more of an impact Commissioner Knight'questioned how the 40 -foot maximum would then be implemented in the Landslide Moratorium area, as they have a 600 square foot maximum structure size and the containers are 320 square feet each Associate Planner Blumenthal noted that the 600 square foot maximum is in the Moratorium Ordinance, which is not before the Planning Commission at this time Director/Secretary Rojas noted that there could be a property in the moratorium area that is already at its 600 square foot cumulative maximum, and therefore they could not have any size PODS placed on their property Commissioner Knight asked if there was a grandfather clause in that ordinance, so that if someone did something on their property before that ordinance was in place, the square footage would still count towards the 600 square feet Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 10 Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the square footage is cumulative since the original residence was constructed. Commissioner Tetreault asked the Planning Commission if they felt there was any need to adjust the size of the PODS allowed on the property in the moratorium area. Commissioner Gerstner did not feel it was necessary to adjust the size, noting that it was not necessary to tie the square footage of a PODS to our established allowable addition size in the moratorium area. Commissioner Karp discussed the clause which says that PODS cannot be visible from any other property, which he felt was saying that most of the people in the community will not be allowed to have a PODS in their backyard. Commissioner Knight felt that if a PODS were placed in the backyard and painted a neutral color and screened with vegetation, it could then be considered non-visible. Commissioner Tetreault asked if siding were put on the PODS and a small pitched roof added so that it looked like a pre -manufactured storage shed, would that then be considered visible. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it would still be considered visible He also noted that if the Planning Commission feels that if a PODS were made to look like the house they may want to make it subject to neighborhood compatibility Commissioner Gerstner felt that everything is o.k. as long as the PODS are not visible, however if they are visible they then drop into the sequence of the neighborhood compatibility guidelines. Commissioner Tetreault asked, as presently written, if the proposed Ordinance provides for neighborhood compatibility review. He felt that, as written, the Ordinance states that PODS must not be visible from neighboring properties Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that was correct. Commissioner Tetreault asked if an exception should be carved out for the Portuguese Bend area because of its peculiar geography, where the City will permit the things that may be considered unsightly, because of the greater need in the area. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the Planning Commission should stay with the definition of not visible, and the definition of not visible could mean screened by vegetation He then suggested this be reviewed in six months and amended if necessary Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Knight noted, however, that asking that additional vegetation be planted in the landslide area will need additional watering, and additional water is something that is not necessarily wanted in this area Commissioner Gerstner asked if there are currently many PODS in the Portuguese Bend area that are visible to the neighbors or from the street. Director/Secretary Rojas could not think of any in the Portuguese Bend area that stand out and are visible from public streets, but noted that he has not gone out to look for them Commissioner Tetreault stated that foliage has been discussed as the logical screening device, but asked if there was something else that could be used to screen the PODS Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the screening would have to be done by landscaping, structures, or fences that meet the code He noted that fences can only be 6 feet in height, per the Code Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was inclined to say that if the PODS could be made to look like a pre -manufactured shed it would be sufficient, however he knew that would most likely open up a whole new set of problems Associate Planner Blumenthal added that in the Portuguese Bend area half of the area is in the residential zone and the rest is located in the open space hazard zone He explained that in those cases, even if one were able to get a Moratorium Exception Permit approved, the open space hazard zoning would restrict them from doing any type of development of new structures He noted that the way this proposed Ordinance is worded any lot that is developed with a residence would be allowed to have a PODS if they met the required criteria. Commissioner Karp felt that in the non -landslide area the use of PODS should be prohibited, and asked if that was the general consensus of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that in non -landslide areas the Planning Commission to accept E (4)(a). Commissioner Tetreault asked how to deal with PODS that are in the landslide area Commissioner Gerstner felt that the landslide area is a unique area and was inclined to relax the requirement on visibility. He suggested that the wording might be changed to say that PODS in the landslide area are not visible or only visible in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood He felt that this then would become a discretionary decision that can be addressed by the Director. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 12 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff can establish design standards for PODS that cannot be hidden, which he felt would be better than requiring the PODS be compatible with the neighborhood Commissioner Tetreault felt that the landslide area is unique and this would give the residents there a little flexibility on quite a few of the properties where it would be impossible to place a PODS on and keep it invisible Director/Secretary Rojas discussed the landslide area, and noted that the landslide moratorium area encompasses not only the Portuguese Bend area, but also a piece of the Seaview Tract and the Portuguese Bend Club. He questioned whether the Planning Commission wished to include these areas in their discussion of the landslide area Commissioner Knight asked if the Open Space Hazard designation in this area was in the area of the landslide that is actually moving Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there is active landslide area outside of the Open Space Hazard area Director/Secretary Rojas suggested, in discussing the issue of PODS in the landslide area, that language be added that says the Portuguese Landslide area except for Seaview Tract and the Portuguese Bend Club. The Planning Commission agreed this was a good idea. Commissioner Knight asked if the way the Ordinance is now written, if PODS are allowed only on developed lots. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that was correct, except for emergency situations Commissioner Gerstner asked about a person who owns two contiguous lots where the house is on one lot and a PODS is kept on the other lot. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the way the Ordinance is currently written that would not be allowed. Commissioner Gerstner objected, as he felt that if there are two contiguous lots owned by one person and one is developed and the other is being used as if it is just more land on the property, he felt that it is appropriate to be able to put a PODS on that adjacent property. Commissioner Knight agreed. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that if that is the Commission's desire staff can develop language to encompass that into the code amendment He stated, however, that if a PODS is placed on an adjoining lot, it will be issued a building permit, and it will Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 13 be considered a structure on the lot. He noted that if the lot were then sold, there will be a vacant lot that has a building permit for a cargo container Commissioner Gerstner suggested conditioning the approvals so that if the lot is sold the cargo container would have to be removed permits are void Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that staff would discuss the issue with the City Attorney, as he believed there might be certain vesting rights once building permits are issued. Commissioner Gerstner suggested that the PODS always be referred to as a temporary structure used for permanent storage Commissioner Perestam asked about grandfathering the already existing PODS Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the code currently does not address PODS and PODS that exist now will be grandfathered per the Development Code. However, the Building Code requires a building permit for the PODS whether or not this Ordinance is enacted, and the Planning Commission has no purview over that code. Commissioner Gerstner continued his review of the proposed Ordinance, noting that there seems to be no objection to 4b and 4c as well as 4e (1) and 4e (2). Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the item so that staff can make the following adjustments to the proposed Ordinance as follows: Page 2 of the Resolution, section 7(a) change calendar year to a 365 day period; Page 2 (c) insert "as required to facilitate construction" or equivalent language; (e) find a way to describe containers as temporary structures for permanent storage; (e) 4 insert language that these structures are allowed on undeveloped residential properties, provided that the undeveloped property is adjacent to a developed property under the same ownership. Further, if the undeveloped property is sold, the storage container shall be removed; E4 (a) this is acceptable in the non -slide areas, however language be added that in the Portuguese Bend area they either be not visible, or if they are visible they meet a design standard acceptable to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement; E "they" be replaced with "any one"; No. 3 clarify equestrian storage uses; and all subsequent sections of the resolution be made compatible to the changes suggested. Seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0) Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the item will be continued to the January 11, 2005 meeting, PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 51 — Revision "D" and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00402): Seabluff TractlSeabluff HOA Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 14 Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the requested revision He stated that staff could make the appropriate necessary findings and recommends approval of the revision. Commissioner Knight asked if decks over garages were included in this revision Associate Planner Schonborn answered that decks over garages were not part of the revision Commissioner Knight asked how a 12 -foot balcony in this development is different than what the Development Code allows Associate Planner Schonborn explained that there is a Conditional Use Permit that regulates development in the Sea Bluff community, which differs from the Development Code standards Commissioner Knight asked, if the CUP were amended, would all of the other Development Code standards continue to be applicable. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that if it is not addressed within the CUP, then the Development Code standards would apply. Further, this CUP amendment is specifically for the twelve properties within the Sea Bluff community. Commissioner Tetreault opened the public hearing. John Wright 6521 Saridypoint Court stated he was representing both the HOA and himself in his presentation. He explained how the homes in the tract are laid out and the need for the larger deck areas. He felt this change was compatible with the General Plan and that the Board of Directors of the Seabluff HOA has approved the proposed change. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Wright if he understood that at this meeting the Planning Commission was only discussing balconies and not decks over garages. Mr. Wright answered that he understood Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Wright if residents in the neighborhood would also have to get approval from the HOA before applying for building permits Mr Wright answered that the HOA would look at the design before it is presented to the City Commissioner Perestam asked if there will be any privacy issues in regards to expanding the balconies Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 15 Mr Wright explained that all of the balcony structures will be below the road areas and there will not be any privacy issues between neighbors Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court explained that clarified the balcony and trellis and clarified the Sea Bluff HOA minutes that were submitted to the City Commissioner Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he had visited the site and could make all of the necessary findings to approve the project. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the difference between a trellis and a covered patio Associate Planner Schonborn answered that a covered patio has a full solid roof above, while a trellis has slats for a roof Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the difference between a deck and a balcony Associate Planner Schonborn answered that a deck has enclosed area underneath or is less than eight feet in height. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-47 thereby conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit revision and the Coastal Permit, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00298: 28016 Beechgate Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation He stated that staff was able to make all necessary findings and therefore was recommending approval of the Height Variation, with the conditions presented in the staff report Commissioner Tetreault opened the public hearing Aru Tamhane 28016 Beechgate Drive (applicant) stated that she had read the staff report and agreed to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight stated that he has an issue with the bulk and mass of the home, as it has a flat facade with bay windows projecting out, while most homes in the neighborhood have a hip roof facing the street which helps eliminate bulk and mass from the street Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Tetreault felt that there are quite a few homes in the neighborhood that are similar to the one proposed. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2004-48 thereby approving, with conditions, the Height Variation, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. (4-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. 4. Variance and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00223): 3705 Hightide Dr, Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Variance and Grading Permit. She explained that staff had received a letter of concern from a neighbor regarding the reduction in the required front yard setback. She explained that, as stated in the staff report, since the addition will not project closer to the front property line, staff determined that the addition will not be detrimental to the general public's health and safety She also explained that staff had received another letter of concern from a neighbor regarding construction hours, however she noted that construction hours are set in the City's Municipal Code and staff could not comply with the neighbor's request. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the Variance and Grading Permit and was recommending approval of the project Commissioner Gerstner asked staff how the houses in this area were allowed to build into the front yard setback Assistant Planner Yu stated that the houses were built under the County and staff is not aware what the front yard setback requirement was at the time these homes were constructed. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the houses in the area have very steep slopes in the back and staff has noted instances where the County allowed houses to be built into the front yard setback area to minimize grading on steep slopes. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the front additions were not projecting closer to the front property lines than the existing balconies Assistant Planner Yu agreed Commissioner Tetreault opened the public hearing. Anthony Tam 1110 N. Micaign Avenue, Pasadena, stated that he was available to answer any questions from the Planning Commission There being no questions, Commissioner Tetreault closed the public hearing Commissioner Knight referred to the staff report which stated that lot coverage would be increased He noted that the balconies were being enclosed, which is not an increase Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 17 in lot coverage and the addition in the back is smaller than the deck it is replacing. He asked staff where the increase in lot coverage was taking place Assistant Planner Yu explained that the existing rear deck was not considered in calculating lot coverage, therefore the addition in the back would increase the lot coverage Commissioner Karp felt that this was a very simple addition that meets all code requirements and recommended approval of the project Commissioner Tetreault felt that the proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood and complimented the architect. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-49 thereby approving the Grading and Variance Permit as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of October 12, 2004 Commissioner Knight noted that he submitted his suggested changes to the minutes to staff. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (3-0-2) with Commissioners Tetreault and Perestam abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 7. Minutes of October 26, 2004 Commissioner Karp noted a revision to page 4 of the minutes Commissioner Tetreault noted a change on page 11 of the minutes, replacing the word "property" with "home". Commissioner Karp moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre -Agenda for the meeting of November 23, 2004 Commissioner Gerstner noted that he would be absent from the November 23rd meeting. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 18 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 19